Navigaton

Coal is the
remains of carbon based material (once living plants).It was likely made by huge mats of vegetation
that were ripped up from their roots in violent storms and piled in layers during or after the great flood of Noah's day.Sediment was deposited on top of these layers
and this in turn squeezed out the water.The temperature of the buried flora then was increased possibly as a
result of burial by cooling volcanic lava and ash.Then the plants began to char which turned it
into coal.This concept is supported by
the natural occurrences during and after the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980.Whether coal, oil, concretion or carbon films
are found as a result of plant life being buried may have more to do with the
density of the plant life, the amount of sediment under where it was buried and
the heat that was particular to the area in question caused by rapidly cooling
rocks from volcanic activity and/or accelerated nuclear decay within some types
of flows from this volcanic activity.

The National
Academy of Sciences suggests that the whale evolved from an ancient quadruped. In their book, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (2006)they state this as a fact, “The fossil
record shows that these cetaceans evolved from a primitive group of hoofed
mammals called Mesonychids. They offer the following evidences: First, some of these mammals crushed and ate
turtles. They “know” this because of the
shape of the Mesonychid teeth. This
creature evolved into a species with front forelimbs and powerful rear legs
with large feet that were especially useful for paddling (no suggestion was
made as to how they evolved). This animal
was known as the Ambulocetus. The Ambulocetus
“could have moved between sea and
land” [bold emphasis by me]. According
to them this creature could move its back in a strong up and down (no evidence
is offered for this “factoid” other than its fossilized vertebrae supposedly
indicates this as a truth. The next
fossil in the series was the Rodhocetus. This “thing” didn’t go on land much according
to them (they didn’t say how they know this or reach this conclusion). Next, the Basilosaurus
fossils indicated a whale like creature, but it still supposedly had hind
limbs. Then came the modern whales.
(National Academy, 2006).

Some
evolutionists claimed that they had found a fossil of a walking whale.However, the bones are too high in the
geologic column and the bones were found “piled” together with a variety of
other creatures which invites bad interpretation when a paleontologist
inadvertently (or not) puts the wrong head on the right body.Also evolutionists claim that certain bones
in the pelvic region of modern whales are vestigial.However, it has been determined that they are
not vestigial.They happen to be
critical to the support of whale reproduction (by holding the organs necessary
for reproduction in place) (Parker, 2004).

Some alleged evidence
offered by evolutionists is a comparison of teeth from a Mesonyx and a modern whale.The Mesonyx was a four-footed
mammal and apparently was kind of like a wolf with hoofs.Others think the whale evolved from the Tupaia, a very small shrew-like quadruped.However, there is a high degree of
uncertainty among evolutionary scientists.But that doesn’t stop the museums and textbook writers from stating
these things as fact.All they need is
one scientist who wants to see his/her name in “lights” and that’s not hard to
find.Having had some personal
experience in dealing with newspaper writers, I can attest that some of them
try to put words in the mouths of those with whom they are conducting an
interview and at times they can be quite obvious about making it clear that if
you want to see your name in print you need to say this or that.

In a used
textbook I purchased a few years ago to see what was being taught at the middle
school level in science, I found a description of not only the horse evolution
(described above), but also the whale evolution.The whale statement in this book is very
brief and doesn’t specify names of animals, but it does compare the similarity
of whales to its supposed ancestor(s), “They
have no hind legs, their forelegs are shaped into paddles, and their tales are
like those of fish.Their young are born
alive (not in egg shells) and are fed by their mother’s milk, just like the
young of land mammals” (Victor, 1997).There is no real evidence offered supporting their conclusion.

There are many
evidences supporting the idea that whales have always been whales.The Bible says all swimming things were
created on day five and that God finished creating after day six and rested on
day seven.That means nothing else has
been originated as a kind since then.

As for
scientific evidences, it is important to note that there are several types or
kinds of whales.For example, some have
teeth and some do not and some dive to great depths while others do not.Without regard to the diversity of the whales
(possibly several kinds were created on day five), there are some interesting
evidences that refute evolutionary thinking.First, there is absolutely no reasonable suggestion for how an air
breathing-land living quadruped could have adjusted its method of breathing and
processing oxygen through a gill system (or something else).The first wolf-like animal that entered the
salt water to get something to eat would have returned to land.It could not have possibly lived in the water.All of its marine physiological functions
would have had to have been present at one time for it to survive and breathe
in the ocean (Sodera, 2009).

Second, there
are countless skeletal differences in the anatomy of the whale and any of its
supposed predecessors.Yes, there are
similarities, but this is expected from a God who used a common system of not
so unique mosaics to create a unique life form.The evolutionists seem to favor focusing on the similarities of
skeletons and forget to consider the differences (and there are many) (Sodera,
2009).

Third, whales
have blow holes and they are always above the head.There are no land mammals on earth that have
a blow hole or nose on top of their head and since a blow hole is necessary for
survival it had to be there from the very first day the whale existed.No blowhole – no whale – no evolution
(Sodera, 2009).

Fourth, the
teeth of whales are very different from land mammals.While whales may not need teeth to survive,
it does seem relevant that some have baleen plates which they do need to
survive.There is no suggestion on the
table (to my knowledge) regarding how teeth might have morphed into baleen
plates. Sodera says it is not possible
(Sodera, 2009).

Fifth, the
flippers have no comparative parallel amongst the land mammals.The whale uses his flipper to swim in a
vertical movement pattern.All land
mammals use their legs and swing their tails horizontally when swimming (which
doesn’t add to their ability to swim, but perhaps helps with balance).If the whale did not have a fully functional
flipper it could not survive (Sodera, 2009).

Sixth, some
whales are able to dive 2000 meters.Evolutionists have absolutely no suggestion for how that ability could
evolve.The pressure of the water at
that depth would be tremendous and the ability to hold ones breath for a
lengthy period of time would be required (or the ability to process oxygen
through fish gills).This is not known
to be possible with land creatures (Sodera, 2009).

Seventh, whales
do not have insulating blubber on their flippers.Because of this how could they prevent heat
loss in cold water?Again, evolutionists
have no reasonable answers.The answer
is in the fact that God created them with a special blood flow system that keeps
them from losing heat very fast (Sodera, 2009).

In the end,
there are no real evidences supporting the evolution of whales. There are only speculations, guesses,
miscalculations, and manipulations.
Unfortunately, some scientists have a philosophy of ignoring the facts,
because they’ve already determined the conclusions.

I read a book sometime back that describes many historic artifacts that have been
discovered, but are generally not well known (or published) because they cause many
problems for the secular humanists. One of these artifacts is the
Antikythera Mechanism. It is an object that was discovered on a ship on
the bottom of the Aegean Sea from before the time of Christ. It was
found in the year 1901 and was encrusted from being underwater for so
long. The mechanism is (was) a bunch of gears and dials inside of a metal
box originally made of bronze. It was named after the island Antikythera
near which it was found. It was cleaned and studied for many years, but
nothing really came of it until 1950, when Derek de Solla Price began to study
it. He concluded that it was a calculator of some sort. Later in
1974, the gammaradiography technique became available to analyze the
artifact. Price was then allowed to look beneath the corroded metal case
and to focus on the depths of the box. Inside the box are over thirty
extremely complex, high-quality, bronze gears. Price ultimately concluded
that the device was used to compute solar and lunar cycles. He made a
working model of the device and found that it could accurately calculate the
positions of all of the planets in our Solar System. It is essentially an
analog computer that was used by an ancient people. The gear works were
so intricate that modern gear works would be challenged to match the
workmanship. Since, I have personally visited gear making shops and
observed the gear making process, I have a special appreciation for this last
statement – gear making is a very precise process. The point of all this
is that an ancient people had the machinery and capability to manufacture
these very precise gears. This is contrary to modern teaching that man is
evolving to become smarter and more intelligent. It is consistent with
the Biblical view that man was created substantially more intelligent than
today and has lost much of his ability and health over time due to genetic
mutation (due to the fall of man in the Garden of Eden). Perhaps this
Antikythera Mechanism was used by navigators just after the flood, although
modern secular scientists date it at between 150 and 60 B.C. Either way
it confounds the scientists that something this complex and old exists.
There is considerable evidence that the maritimers of old had maps of the
entire world – and that they were very accurate. This is only one
artifact mentioned in the book I read, The Puzzle of Ancient Man:
Evidence for Advanced Technology in Past Civilizations.

Articles I've published with the Texas Home School Coalition's quarterly magazine:https://www.thsc.org/author/brianshepherd/1. An article on how to think https://www.thsc.org/2011/11/a-series-of-coincidences/2. An article on a family trip to Fort Parker https://www.thsc.org/2011/02/old-fort-parker/3. An article on a date night https://www.thsc.org/2011/05/date-night-at-the-convention/4. A testimony about my conviction regarding creation happening https://www.thsc.org/2011/11/a-series-of-coincidences/February 22, 2018

This is one way evolutionists have successfully supplanted truth (by redefining words)

Compare:

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

Theory

THE'ORY,
noun [Latin theoria]

1.
Speculation; a
doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation,
without a view to practice. It is here taken in an unfavorable sense, as
implying something visionary.

Merriam-Webster's 2017 Dictionary

Theory

1
:
a plausible or
scientifically acceptable
general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

The so-called 'theory of evolution' is barely viable under the 1828 definition (speculation), but under the 2017 definition (since they can't prove it's true with facts) it almost works for them, because they changed the definition to mean "generally accepted." However, since evolution is not plausible, the word 'theory' still won't work as a good definition except by using straw man arguments to defend their position(s).

We see other examples of definition shifting in words like 'hypothesis,' 'fetus,' and many others.February 21, 2018

Scientists began measuring the earth’s magnetic field in 1829. Over a period of years, it has been discovered that this magnetic field is losing its intensity on an exponential basis. Further studies of ‘archaeomagnetism’ (the study of the magnetism in pottery, bricks and the like, from the past) reveal that around 1,000 years ago the earth’s magnetic field was approximately 40% stronger than it is today. Additionally, it has been decaying steadily since then. The challenge is to extrapolate the magnetic field back in time to some point when the intensity would have been too great for life to have been sustainable. If the magnetic ‘curve’ was extrapolated back 7,000 years, the magnetic field intensity would have been 32 times greater than it is today; it really could not have been much stronger than that since the earth would have melted from the heat of the core. However, it is also known that the magnetic field fluctuated quite a bit about the time of the Noachic flood. These fluctuations are combined, with the extrapolated curve on a graph, thanks to Dr. Russell Humphreys, to illustrate how this might have looked (see figure 1).

In the final analysis, considering the fluctuations, the steady decay and the time having passed, the loss of intensity in earth’s magnetic field agrees strongly with an earth that was created about 6,000 years ago.Furthermore, the near-term consequences of the diminishing magnetic field appear to validate a bleak outlook for earth’s future.February 20, 2018